The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 9 are not checked yet.
Economic evaluation of combined population-based screening for multiple blindness-causing eye diseases in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background More than 90% of vision impairment is avoidable. However, in China, a routine screening programme is currently unavailable in primary health care. With the dearth of economic evidence on screening programmes for multiple blindness-causing eye diseases, delivery options, and screening frequencies, we aimed to evaluate the costs and benefits of a population-based screening programme for multiple eye diseases in China. Methods We developed a decision-analytic Markov model for a cohort of individuals aged 50 years and older with a total of 30 1-year cycles. We calculated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of screening programmes for multiple major blindness-causing eye diseases in China, including age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, cataracts, and pathological myopia, from a societal perspective (including direct and indirect costs). We analysed rural and urban settings separately by different screening delivery options (non-telemedicine [ie, face-to-face] screening, artificial intelligence [AI] telemedicine screening, and non-AI telemedicine screening) and frequencies. We calculated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) using quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of the cost per blindness year avoided. One-way deterministic and simulated probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the main outcomes. Findings Compared with no screening, non-telemedicine co…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“However, these studies only focused on theoretical scenarios where sensitivity and specificity can change independently, overlooking that in practical screening tools, these two parameters have an inverse correlation.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“To evaluate cost-effectiveness change, previous studies assigned different values to the sensitivity and specificity of AI models14–16.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“In economically disadvantaged rural areas of China, the cost of one additional case of blindness is equivalent to ~13.6 additional referrals14.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“Most of these studies leaned towards adopting AI models with a high specificity (over 97%).”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“Compliance with referral suggestion for a full ocular examination among diabetic patients was reported as 33% in one rural region of the Lifeline Express Program and as 50.7% in urban regions14,43,44.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“Previous health economic studies in China have only compared a specific AI-based screening strategy with conventional manual screening, to indicate the cost-effectiveness of using AI for screening DR14,15,37–39.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“To capture the general progression rate of DR in China, we estimated the transition rates from non-referable DR to referable DR as 7%.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“The utility values for each DR status (non-referable DR, referable DR, and treated referable DR) and blindness were derived from previous studies in China that closely matched the situation in the current study14,15,37,39,51,52, and discounted at an annual rate of 3.5% according to the recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence53.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
Citations
Cites
Flaxman, S. R., Bourne, R. R. A., Resnikoff, S., Ackland, P., Braithwaite, T., Cicinelli, M. V., Das, A., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe, J., Kempen, J. H., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30393-5 · Cited by 3,477
Bourne, R. R. A., Flaxman, S. R., Braithwaite, T., Cicinelli, M. V., Das, A., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe, J., Kempen, J. H., Leasher, J., Limburg, H., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30293-0 · Cited by 2,213
The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: vision beyond 2020
Burton, M. J., Ramke, J., Marques, A. P., Bourne, R. R. A., Congdon, N., Jones, I., Ah Tong, B. A. M., Arunga, S., Bachani, D., Bascaran, C., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30488-5 · Cited by 1,624
Self-citationBourne, R., Steinmetz, J. D., Flaxman, S., Briant, P. S., Taylor, H. R., Resnikoff, S., Casson, R. J., Abdoli, A., Abu-Gharbieh, E., Afshin, A., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30425-3 · Cited by 1,431
Handling Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Models
Briggs, A. H. (2000) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.2165/00019053-200017050-00006 · Cited by 807
Digital technology, tele-medicine and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: A global perspective
Li, J.-P. O., Liu, H., Ting, D. S. J., Jeon, S., Chan, R. V. P., Kim, J. E., Sim, D. A., Thomas, P. B. M., Lin, H., Chen, Y., et al. (2021) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100900 · Cited by 626
Self-citationGeneralized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector
Hutubessy, R. C. W., Chisholm, D., Edejer, T. T.-T., & WHO-CHOICE (2003) · Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation · doi:10.1186/1478-7547-1-8 · Cited by 535
Zhang, T., Xu, Y., Ren, J., Sun, L., & Liu, C. (2017) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/s12939-017-0543-9 · Cited by 378
Henderson, C., Knapp, M., Fernandez, J.-L., Beecham, J., Hirani, S. P., Cartwright, M., Rixon, L., Beynon, M., Rogers, A., Bower, P., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f1035 · Cited by 364
Systematic Review of Economic Impact Studies of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care
Wolff, J., Pauling, J. K., Keck, A., & Baumbach, J. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/16866 · Cited by 295
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Zhang, 2016, The evaluation of the mortality and life expectancy of Chinese population, Popul J, 38, 18
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–115 of 115
Foundation Models in Diagnosis of Ophthalmic Diseases: Construction and Application
Huang, X., Zhang, G., Xu, J., Chen, S., Li, Y., Sun, X., Qu, Y., & Jia, H. (2026) · Eye & ENT Research · doi:10.1002/eer3.70041
Sánchez, J. B. D. C., Kosaka-Zanabria, V., González-del-Valle, F., Córdoba-Doña, J. A., Caraballo-Rodríguez, G., & Rodriguez-Herrera, M. (2026) · Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología · doi:10.1016/j.oftal.2026.502589
Wei, C., Zhang, L., Chen, C., Le, Y., Feng, Q., Li, Z., & Leng, Z. (2026) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2026.06.005
Ji, Q., Zhang, F., Zhao, X., Feng, K., Zhang, M., & Hong, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1859242
Sánchez, J. B. D. C., Kosaka-Zanabria, V., González-del-Valle, F., Córdoba-Doña, J. A., Caraballo-Rodríguez, G., & Rodriguez-Herrera, M. (2026) · Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.oftale.2026.502589
Gupta, E., Aung, M. H., & Bowden, E. C. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15155827
Hu, Y., Wang, X., Ji, Y., Chen, Y., Liang, Z., Wu, S., Lai, M., & Yang, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2026.1909816
Zhong, L., Wang, S., You, R., Wang, L., Abdullahi, M. A., Du, W., Xu, X., Lu, F., Zhang, S., & Liang, Y. (2026) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo-2025-329267
Beyond the clinic: a community-embedded, multidomain framework for early detection of glaucoma
Hanyuda, A., Yamada, T., Tsuda, S., Himori, N., & Nakazawa, T. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1915134
Liu, H., Zhang, K., Liu, Y., & Yuan, J. (2026) · Scientia Sinica Vitae · doi:10.1360/ssv-2026-0219
Self-citationZhou, H., Xing, B., Tian, S., Chen, W., Yang, C., & Xiao, Z. (2026) · BMC Ophthalmology · doi:10.1186/s12886-026-05333-3
Gao, Q., Hong, M., Teerawattananon, Y., & Wang, Y. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/104019
Xu, J., Zhang, Z., Zhang, G., Qu, Y., Zhenyu, W., Sun, X., He, D., & Jia, H. (2026) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.16.04357
Sutyawan, I. W. E., Surasmiati, N. M. A., Alberta, I. B., & Prasetio, C. (2026) · Community Medicine and Education Journal · doi:10.37275/cmej.v7i2.953
Leardini, L. E. C., Araújo, D. V., Taleb, A. C., Scherer, R., Rosa, A. A. M., & de Freitas, L. B. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10658019/v1
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, H., Li, R., Zhang, Y., Zhang, K., Yusufu, M., Liu, Y., Mou, D., Chen, X., Tian, J., Li, H., Fan, S., Tang, J., & Wang, N.
- Affiliations
- Beijing Institute of Technology (CN)
- Beijing Tongren Hospital (CN)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Han Dan City Eye Hospital - The Third Hospital of Handan (CN)
- Renmin University of China (CN)
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Global Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e456-e465
- ISSN
- 2214-109X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4317790704
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 8
- FWCI
- 22.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Greater South Information System
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (82171051)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Keywords
- blindness prevention, cost-effectiveness, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, cataract, pathologic myopia, telemedicine screening, artificial intelligence screening, urban-rural differences, visual impairment, China, Markov model, quality-adjusted life years, screening frequency, primary care
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Aged, Artificial Intelligence, China, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Glaucoma, Humans, Middle Aged, Ophthalmology, Telemedicine, Quality-Adjusted Life Years
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
